Standing Committee F

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

Clause 3 - Drug offence searches: England and Wales

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 3, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
'(d) a prison officer'. 
This is a probing amendment. Subsection (6) defines ''appropriate officer'' as: 
''a constable, . . . a person who is designated as a detention officer in pursuance of section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 if his designation applies paragraph 33D of Schedule 4 to that Act, or . . . a person who is designated as a staff custody officer in pursuance of section 38 of that Act if his designation applies paragraph 35B of Schedule 4 to that Act,''. 
Clause 38(2) in part 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 defines ''officers'' as 
''community support officer; . . . investigating officer; . . . detention officer; . . . escort officer.'' 
The amendment is a request for clarification because the clause does not mention prison officer. I would like the Minister to define clearly the appropriate officer, and to include prison officer under the definition in the Bill if she believes that the term should be included. 
We all know that there is an enormous problem with drugs in our prisons. The number of people in prison for drug offences alone is very high and is growing. The last figures that I have for 2002 show that 16 per cent. of sentenced male prisoners were convicted of drug offences, whereas in 1993, only 7 per cent. of our sentenced male prisoners were convicted for drug offences. There has been a similar enormous increase in the number of sentenced female prisoners convicted of drugs offences. Back in 1993, some 27 per cent. of the sentenced female prison population had been convicted of drugs offences, but in 2002, that figure had risen alarmingly to about 40 per cent. 
The Home Office has undertaken several studies on the problem. A recent Home Office study found that 47 per cent. of recently sentenced male prisoners had used heroin, crack or cocaine in the 12 months before imprisonment, and that heroin was the drug most likely to be used daily. Overall, 73 per cent. of all respondents from the sentenced male prison population had taken an illegal drug before entering prison. In some inner city local prisons, as many as eight out of 10 men are found to have class A drugs in their system on reception. In Styal, the women's prison, the same number of new arrivals are thought to have a drugs problem. 
The problem is highlighted by Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, in her latest annual report, which came out in the past week or so. As page 36 makes clear, there are huge drugs issues in prisons, and supply reduction and monitoring is an issue in all of them. Apparently, there were gaps in mandatory drug testing in many prisons, with little or no weekend testing and inconsistent target testing. The majority of the mandatory drug-testing positives related to cannabis, but the key performance target did not distinguish between cannabis and class A drugs, so it provided a limited measure of the scale of the problem. Interestingly, there were also issues in some establishments about the reliability of particular drug dogs, which are used extensively in prisons. Establishments that integrated supply and demand reduction were likely to be far more successful in reducing the availability of illegal drugs. 
Although the term ''a prison officer'' is not included in the Bill, we need to know what the situation in our prisons is. We cannot have hard evidence, but it seems likely that people who are going into prison are not being cured of their drug problem and that others may, indeed, even acquire a drug habit while they are in prison. I therefore tabled the amendment so that the Minister can tell us what is happening in our prisons, what statistics are being kept in prisons and how she will prevent prisoners from acquiring drug habits and from leaving prison in a worse condition than when they went in.

Caroline Flint: I look forward to you chairing today's proceedings, Mr. Illsley. I hope that we make good progress.
I shall resist the temptation to have a lengthy debate about prisons and drugs; suffice it to say that record sums are going into tackling drug addiction. That includes ensuring that we have appropriate access to treatment across the Prison Service and that we take a coherent approach from the time that someone is arrested so that they are given support if they go to prison and afterwards. That is why record resources are going into dealing with this issue. 
The drug interventions programme is very much about dealing with what has been a weakness over many generations: when people with a drug problem have gone to prison, little attention has been given to their problem, and they have ended up passing through the revolving door time and again. That is why testing is important and why the process of engagement needs to start before people go to court. It  needs to continue when they go to prison and—let us not forget—when they leave prison and go back into the community. 
We are trying to tackle some of the problems about which the police have informed us. People may, for example, hide drugs in the cavities of their bodies and refuse to have an intimate search, which has caused the police problems. That is what lies behind the clause. The amendment would include prison officers in the definition of an ''appropriate officer''. I have looked into the matter and have had extensive discussions about whether it is right to leave prisons officers out of the clause. I have asked what happens when a prisoner, a visitor to a prison or, regrettably, somebody working in one is involved in drug activity. While they are on duty, prison officers have all the powers of a constable, including arrest. Prisoner custody officers, who are the officers at contracted-out prisons, do not have the powers of a constable, but they have a citizen's power of arrest. There is likely to be a change to the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill that will give prisoner custody officers the power to detain a suspected smuggler for two hours, pending the arrival of the police. That will be a helpful strengthening of their role. 
If a prison officer suspects that a visitor is trying to smuggle drugs into a prison by concealment, that visitor will be stopped, arrested and detained pending the arrival of the police. The visitor will not be subjected to an intimate search at the prison, either by prison officers or by the police. The police will decide whether to release the visitor or to take him into custody, where he will be removed to a police station and processed as would any other suspect. In that situation, following the authorisation by an inspector that is covered in the clause, the suspect might be subject to an intimate search at the police station under the provisions of section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The clauses, if agreed, will apply in that situation. I have asked whether we are missing something—whether prison officers, having received authorisation, should be able to ask a person whether he will comply with an intimate search. The feedback has been that it is not necessary because, if that point is reached, it will be a police matter, and it should be dealt with in a police environment. However, I hope that I have made it clear that that is not to deny that prison officers and prisoner custody officers have a role in tackling the use of drugs in prison and their being brought in.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that the Minister has been making inquiries as to what happens in prison. However, she has raised a few points about people who work in prisons. I should like, briefly, to explore with her what rights prison officers have to search other people working in a prison who are suspected of having brought in drugs.
One of the most serious issues that I have found on visiting prisons has been that visitors often bring in drugs by concealing them not on themselves but on children attending prison on family visits. One of the biggest problems for prison officers is their feeling that they should inspect babies' clothes and nappies,  because they are vehicles by which drugs can be brought into prisons. What have the Minister's inquiries revealed on those two fronts?

Caroline Flint: There is a difference between an intimate search and a more general one. I shall obtain the details if they are required—I am sure that there are guidelines on searches. There is screening for visitors going into prisons. In some prisons, sniffer dogs are used. I have asked what would happen if one of those dogs sniffed out some drugs and the drugs were not obviously in a person's bags or clothing. I am told that at that point the person would be detained and the police would be engaged, because it would indicate that an intimate search would be necessary. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Lady with more details about current search powers. Intimate search is rather different, and my understanding is that there has not been a desire on the part of the Prison Service for prison officers or prison custody officers to be involved in that. They think that it is right for it to be a matter for the police. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. She has obviously taken some pains to look into this subject, which is certainly one that worries me greatly. Nine out of 10 young adult prisoners, for example, say that they used drugs prior to imprisonment, but only one in three young offenders institutions provide drug treatment programmes. The statistics that I quoted when I moved the amendment certainly show that there is an enormous problem with substance abuse in our prisons. Notwithstanding that, some terrific work is being done in prisons by the CARATs teams and others to try to bring appropriate treatment, but that is against a background of diminishing resources. The prison budget is frozen at the moment, as is recruitment, and more and more strains are being put on the Prison Service. Something has to give.

Caroline Flint: I do not want to get into a general discussion about the Prison Service budget, but the additional moneys for drug treatment for those people caught up in our criminal justice system have been earmarked for that purpose, so that they are not lost in the general budget. That is added value in terms of what prisons have had in the past to deal with the matter. Importantly, we did not before have the additional funding that is available to the drug action teams for throughcare and aftercare for prisoners on release. That is a step change from what we have had in the past, and is all additional funding.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that, but we also need the climate in prison in which rehabilitation programmes can be delivered. At the moment, there are increasing problems with the number of prison staff who are available to supervise our prisons. As there is a recruitment freeze, despite the fact that they are operating at safety levels they are also operating at marginal levels, and it is thought that there will be less time to spend on education and rehabilitation and less time spent out of the cells.

Angela Watkinson: When my hon. Friend tabled the amendment to include ''prison officer'' under those encompassed by the term ''appropriate person'', did she have in mind the simple point that drugs are often brought to prisoners by visitors or the much wider idea that drugs may be brought in to prisons by visitors and go undetected, and subsequently will be used by prisoners in their ordinary daily life in prison, when prison officers may need to be determined as appropriate persons for searches.

Cheryl Gillan: I had all of that in mind, and was hoping that we would have the general discussion that we have had about drugs in prisons. Obviously, when we are considering something as widely drawn as this Bill, it is only right that we discuss drugs in all quarters of our community. There is the tip of the iceberg, and the problem is below the surface. No statistics, as far as I know, are produced by the Home Office that consider whether people go into prison without a drugs habit but acquire one when they come out. The evidence is anecdotal, but we hear that as often as not.
I am satisfied that the Minister has considered the subject, but I am not entirely satisfied that we are completely clear about the role of prison officers or of officers and staff in private prisons. I know that the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill is coming to us from the other place, but a date is yet to be fixed for Second Reading in the Lords. I hope that the Minister will cross-reference with her colleague with responsibility for prisons and ensure that there is seamless and joined-up thinking on the issue of drugs. It is important to consider that there is no point having good and enforceable laws to prevent the misuse of drugs in the general community if we ignore the sector inside prisons. 
When that Bill, which introduces the National Offender Management Service, finally gets off the paper and into Committee in the Lords, I will watch what happens to it, because I hope that we will have some sort of comprehensive planning right across the board, linking up with some of the admirable measures in this Bill. With that proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Drug offence searches: Northern Ireland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Clause 4 is almost identical to clause 3 except that it applies to Northern Ireland as opposed to England and Wales. I have a small point to make, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. When looking at similar clauses that apply to different territories, it is not unnatural that one should cast one's eyes over the legislation to see whether there are any differences in the way that they are drafted. The particular difference between clauses 3 and 4 occurs in clause 4(2), which inserts new paragraph (3B), which states:
 ''Where it is proposed that a drug offence search be carried out, a constable shall inform the person who is to be subject to it''. 
That differs from clause 3, which refers to an ''appropriate officer''. My first question is: why that difference? I refer the Minister to a speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in the debate on the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, when she said: 
 ''I make a special plea to the Minister that when future legislation is drafted for Northern Ireland, instead of repeating the word 'constable', recognition is given to the fact that we commonly address new officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland as 'police officers'. Rarely since the Police Reform Act 2002 or the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 has legislation referred to constables. In fact, the Minister will be aware that the term 'constable' is confusing in legislation, as we have a special body of constables appointed under the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and special constables appointed under harbours legislation.''—[Official Report, Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 26 February 2004; cc. 8-9.] 
So her plea to the draftsmen was that, to avoid confusion in the future, all legislation should refer to ''constables'' only when it is properly intended. 
I looked carefully through the debate, and the Northern Ireland Minister failed to pick up the point that the hon. Lady had made. As there is no hon. Member on this Committee who speaks for Northern Ireland, it is only fair that we raise this matter on her behalf. I hasten to add that I have not spoken to her about this, I have merely looked at the debate. It would be suitable, however, for the Minister to respond to this point, and tell us the thinking behind using the word ''constable'' when, obviously, time has moved on.

Caroline Flint: We consulted Northern Ireland on that issue. I understand that Northern Ireland has no detention officers or staff custody officers, and that only constables are involved. We therefore do not need to define the appropriate order. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to change that, but I will check in order to avoid future problems. That is the current position. I hope that, for now, that answers the hon. Lady's question.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I obviously needed to bring up the subject at this stage.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 22, leave out from 'officer' to 'has'.
I am getting tired of hearing my own voice, Mr. Illsley, for which I apologise; I hope that other hon. Members will contribute to our debates as the morning draws on. 
Under clause 3, a drug offence search can be carried out by an officer or a constable, but when we move on to X-rays and ultrasound scans under clause 5 we suddenly find that the ranking has shifted. In subsection (1) of proposed new section 55A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, we see that the officer has to be of 
''at least the rank of inspector''. 
In most police forces, the uniformed ranks in ascending order are police constable, police sergeant, inspector, chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent—and then on to the giddy heights of assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable. That is the ranking in my force, the Thames Valley police force, but I understand that most police forces use the same ranks and symbols. Police constables wear their warrant number on their shoulders, as do police sergeants, but numbers are absent from the epaulettes for the rank of inspector and upwards. One has to identify the rank from a combination of diamond-shaped pips, crowns, wreaths and crossed staves—but they are firm rankings. The special constabulary also has firm rankings—special constable, section officer, area officer, chief area officer and chief officer. Then we come to police community support officers. 
Subsection (1) obviously rules out certain police officers from deciding whether to make use of X-rays and ultrasound scans—particularly police constables and sergeants. Will the Minister say how she arrived at the rank of inspector; and will she explain the situation as it relates to police community support officers? The latter are being used increasingly, and although they do not have full police powers they may well be in and around the police station or area where arrests are being made. 
The provision also states that the officer with at least the rank of inspector has to have 
''reasonable grounds for believing that a person who has been arrested for an offence and is in police detention . . . may have swallowed a Class A drug''. 
Placing that burden on an officer of at least the rank of inspector means that that individual has to rely on information passed to him or her by somebody who was around the suspect when they swallowed the package or whatever was swallowed or suspected of being swallowed. In my experience, an inspector will not necessarily be around at the time of arrest or when the suspect may have swallowed a class A drug. The inspector will therefore always rely on evidence that a junior or other officer reports to him. 
If the Minister specifies a police officer of any description—indeed, a constable—the clause will work. I see no advantage in limiting the officer concerned to the rank of inspector. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment, which will add greatly to the scope of the Bill, tighten up the provisions and allow any police officer who is in the vicinity or around the subject to make the decision, thereby triggering the search of that suspect.

Alistair Carmichael: I am happy to give the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) an opportunity to have a break, although she may not like what I say, because I am not with her on the amendment.
The provisions on the decision to refer an arrestee to a doctor or a hospital for an X-ray or ultrasound are eminently sensible. We are talking about a medical examination and in law a medical examination without consent can often be assault. In those circumstances it is quite sensible for the appropriate safeguards to be put in place. Doing so is also in line with similar provisions already enacted. 
We are also talking about something that involves a significant deployment of resources. Taking a person to a hospital or a doctor for an X-ray or ultrasound examination will take up a significant amount of the time of the officers concerned. It is therefore entirely appropriate for an inspector, who is normally responsible for the allocation of duties within a division, to make that decision. 
I expect that financial costs would also be incurred as a result of the use of hospital facilities, because in this brave new world we get nothing for nothing.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps I have not explained my reasoning clearly. Somebody of the rank of inspector should certainly be able to authorise the search with an X-ray or a scan, but the point is that an inspector will not have been present. The suspicion should be acknowledged by providing that any officer with reasonable grounds for such suspicion who is present at the time in question should tell the inspector; the inspector could then make the authorisation. It should be made clear that an officer who witnesses the act of swallowing, or what he believes is an act of concealment in a body cavity, should be the pivotal police officer in the initial stages of the clause. I concede that then someone of the rank of inspector or above should give the final authorisation.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her thinking clearer, although I do not think that what she says is borne out in practice. The provision, like so many comparable provisions already, will inevitably work in this way: the constable or whoever makes the arrest will go to the inspector and explain why he believes an X-ray or ultrasound would be appropriate; that explanation would form the reasonable grounds on which the inspector would make the authorisation.
The hon. Lady remarked on drafting. By removing the words 
''of at least the rank of inspector'' 
her amendment would result in any constable having the power to authorise an X-ray or scan. That may be what is these days euphemistically called an unintended consequence, but it would be a significant one. For those reasons, well intentioned though the amendment no doubt is, it would not be appropriate.

Henry Bellingham: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, the shadow Minister, because the clause does not give sufficient recognition to patterns of modern policing. In my constituency the Norfolk constabulary is setting up a number of outlying beat stations, most of which come under the command of a duty sergeant. There is an inspector in the area command, who is often on duty, but we all know that policing is becoming far more flexible and fleet of foot, and less rigid. The Minister surely appreciates that. It is a mistake for the Government to tell modern police forces to respond to the demands that they face with more flexibility, while they legislate to make the system more rigid.
The Minister should recognise, too, that in many rural police forces dozens of police constables and sergeants have up to 25 or 30 years' experience. Often the beat officers in rural areas are constables or sergeants with great experience who know their area inside out and are responsible people. Of course, they would contact the area commander and discuss the situation, but problems may arise if the clause is not altered. Can the reasonable grounds held by 
''an officer of at least the rank of inspector'' 
under the clause be simply seeing a report from a police constable in a beat station? I do not know. That could be subject to legal challenge, in my opinion. We must make it clear that we want to deal with a serious problem.

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman's logic were to be followed throughout the criminal justice system, no warrants for search and apprehension would ever be granted unless the judge or the justice of the peace granting the warrant were present to see what had happened.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is a well established legal route established in much legislation. I simply point out the possibility of problems or challenges to the clause in court. We need to give the police as much flexibility as possible. Clause 5 is one of the Government's flagship clauses, and to make it work properly we need to support the amendment.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the amendment to encompass all police officers is made, it should be absolutely clear that ''officer'' means a properly qualified police officer with knowledge of the law, and not a community support officer? Otherwise, there will be a creep of responsibility, and such powers will be passed to CSOs, but they should be given only to qualified police officers.

Henry Bellingham: I agree entirely. In most Home Office Bills of which I have experience, ''officer'' means police officer, but the world of policing is changing under this Government, and more responsibility is being given to CSOs. As far as I am concerned, ''officer'' means police officer—that is our intention—but we ought to consider carefully what my hon. Friend proposes. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Caroline Flint: I am somewhat concerned by some of the statements of Conservative Members. Although it is part of the direction of the Bill to try to find appropriate ways in which to tackle people who deal drugs, it is important that there are safeguards in the system to which the police are accountable. That is why I resist the amendment, which would allow an officer of any rank to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said, to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan is a significant step in an investigation, and it is right and proper that, as in other areas, that step is considered. I have heard the debate about how an inspector can make such a decision if he or she was not present at the point of arrest, but police officers have to seek authorisation for different things every day, and they have to make the case to an officer of rank—whether an inspector or other rank—as to why it is reasonable to authorise that action.

Brian Iddon: In my experience, swallowers turn up mainly at airports. Before we get into major discussions on the clause, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that it covers airport police? I may well say something about that problem in the stand part debate otherwise.

Caroline Flint: Yes, it would, but Customs and Excise officers are also involved at airports, particularly with people who are used as mules. The clause is primarily to deal with dealers and cases such as those in which there is a raid on a property that the police have under surveillance, and people swallow rocks of crack to hide them, but it would cover police at airports. They, too, will have to seek the authorisation of an inspector.
Removal of this important safeguard would add no obvious benefit. I understand that an officer in a rural police station could put the case to an inspector over the phone, so it should not inhibit them. We are all keen to find ways to ensure that the police are able to get on with their primary job, but there is still a responsibility in the management chain to oversee police activities. We should not lose sight of the proper safeguards, which should continue to exist in this and other areas. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to withdraw her amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. The clause could have been drafted more clearly; I see no problem with someone above the rank of inspector authorising an X-ray, but the clause does not recognise that that would be someone other than the person who was present at the time when the person who was arrested might have swallowed the drug. The drafting is unclear, but I accept that when the Bill becomes an Act, the record of these proceedings will stand. The Minister has clarified the position for the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, leave out 'a Class A' and insert
'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'.

Eric Illsley: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 40, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert 
'within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer'. 
No. 38, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out paragraph (b). 
No. 39, in clause 5, page 5, line 29, leave out '(or both)'.

Cheryl Gillan: This is the largest group of amendments to clause 5, and it gives me the opportunity to raise several points. I am somewhat surprised that the amendments have been grouped, as they cover separate issues. Amendment No. 37 seeks to leave out 'a Class A' and to insert
'or can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'. 
My aim is to widen the provision, because there could be some question about how we identify whether the drug is a class A drug. I think that we on this Committee are fairly familiar with the classifications—heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines, if prepared for injection and, as we shall discuss later in the Bill, magic mushrooms prepared for use are all class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Class B drugs are amphetamines,  speed and barbiturates, while cannabis, recently reclassified, joins anabolic steroids and benzodiazepines and tranquilisers such as valium and temazepam as a class C drug. 
Identifying them is a different matter. It could be difficult to tell a class A drug from a class B or class C one. There could be a challenge to the use of the search on the basis of what type of drug the individual might have swallowed. Tranquilisers—class C drugs—are often tablets or capsules. It is difficult to tell the difference between a tranquiliser and ecstasy, which also comes as a tablet or a capsule in various shapes and sizes, but is a class A drug. Anabolic steroids also come in tablets that can be swallowed, and they are class C drugs. However, amphetamines, which can come in tablet form or as a grey or white powder, are class B drugs in certain conditions. Likewise, cocaine, a white powder, is a class A drug. I hope that the Minister is following this, although I am sure that she has been briefed on what the drugs look like. 
It seems to be a narrowing of the provision to state 
''may have swallowed a Class A drug''. 
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about widening it, and substituting the words 
'can be reasonably suspected to have swallowed any controlled drug'. 
That would be much more fitting in the light of what actually happens when someone is apprehended by a police officer. 
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned airport use. In many instances, of course, people picked up by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on their arrival at airports have ingested the drugs before boarding the plane, so the drugs may have been in their system for a long time. Inevitably, the drugs smuggled into this country in that way are class A. On the street, however, many dealers carry drugs, concealed, for example, in their mouths. I believe that they wrap them up in clingfilm and push them up inside their cheek or into other parts of their body, so when they are approached by a police officer who does not even intend to arrest them, they may swallow them. The drugs may not be class A; they have something else concealed on their person. The amendment removes the ambiguity, and I hope that the Minister will accept it as a valuable addition to the Bill. 
Amendment No. 40 is purely probing, and seeks to insert 
''within 3 hours of the authorisation by that officer''. 
It attempts to glean from the Minister how she expects the clause to operate, as it defines no time limit between the authorising of an X-ray or ultrasound scan and getting the defendant to an X-ray or ultrasound scan facility. We need to consider the practicalities of how the provision will work. I welcome the clause and this departure from existing legislation. I have no problem with it, but I want to ensure that it does not fail because it does not work in practice.

Henry Bellingham: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as one would expect, but I ask her to consider the following point. When drug addicts or other suspects swallow a package, they often put their health in extreme danger. We have had examples of packages opening in people's insides, and those people have died or have had to be rushed to hospital. Would my hon. Friend not agree that that is another reason why we need a time scale?

Cheryl Gillan: There are many reasons why we need to consider the time scale, and that was a helpful intervention.
Let us consider what happens in our accident and emergency departments, because the suspect's destination will be a hospital. Timing will be critical. In England, there are 155 trusts with at least one major A and E. According to the NHS handbook for 2004, which is published by the NHS Alliance, that is about the same as the number of acute trusts—NHS trusts with hospitals in them. 
In the normal scheme of things, a vast array of diagnostic investigations is required for patients. They are required by emergency patients, and they include the plain X-rays and ultrasound scans that I assume the Minister envisages under the clause. Waiting for such procedures places an additional burden on patients. Existing processes, which are usually designed around the efficiency and resources of individual departments, can often inadvertently cause delays for the patient whose pathway takes them, for example, from one department to another within the hospital. 
What will happen, therefore, when the police ring up the local hospital, saying, ''We want to bring a suspect down for an immediate X-ray''? Will staff be available? Staff roles have been expanded, and practitioner roles in radiography, as well as nurse requesting and nurse interpretation of X-rays, have been introduced. How will we know, however, that the relevant staff will be available and that there will be time on the machines to carry out the X-ray and ultrasound scan for the police? 
There are some facts and figures about what is happening in our health care system, and the National Audit Office has come up with some interesting data  about emergency provisions. The Department's survey data show that there are delays to diagnostic tests in A and E, accounting for 11 per cent. of long stays in A and E. We therefore know that there are bottlenecks in A and E departments. I accept that the numbers may be falling, but many trusts must still make an effort to address the problem of access to diagnostic services for ordinary patients, let alone suspects who are brought along from the local police station for an X-ray or a scan. 
There are also problems with national shortages. For example, there is a national shortage of radiographers—

Henry Bellingham: And radiologists.

Cheryl Gillan: And radiologists—my hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. There are only 72 departments where a radiographer is available 24 hours a day. So, the Minister has some other problems. It is possible that an X-ray will be needed in the middle of the night and that the inspector will want it carried out immediately—

Caroline Flint: Why limit it to three hours?

Cheryl Gillan: Exactly, but the amendment is a device to encourage debate—a probing amendment to enable us to discuss the issue of timing.
We have problems because normal patients experience delays in radiology departments; there is not 24-hour cover from technicians and staff who are suitably qualified to carry out or interpret the X-rays and scans; and, of course, in some cases there are enormous gaps in the availability of equipment.

Henry Bellingham: In my local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, there is a shortage of radiographers and radiologists. Although the hospital's representatives would never say so publicly, I think that they would regard the extra pressure of people being brought in by the police for X-rays as a problem for patients; it would put waiting lists and procedures under pressure. If no time scale were specified in the Bill, inordinate delays could result.

Cheryl Gillan: I think that that is right. The Minister must tackle all those questions of timing and access.
I know that some trusts have been quite advanced and have arranged some form of access to a consultant radiologist at all times, for the interpretation of results and the making of diagnoses, despite the shortage of such specialists. Interestingly, at least 10 trusts have developed telemedicine systems for CT scans, and six trusts have or plan remote-access digital X-ray facilities. Has the Minister investigated the availability of such technology for application under clause 5? 
Amendment No. 38 is another probing amendment and would remove paragraph (b) from proposed new section 55A(1) of PACE. The Minister has included an extra hurdle in the subsection, requiring the officer—of at least the rank of inspector—to believe that the person was in possession of a class A drug 
''with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest''.
What is the reason for that extra hurdle? Why, if there has already been an arrest, should the inspector have to satisfy himself further that the suspect who was in possession of the drug was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest? The fact that the arrest has taken place is surely sufficient to indicate that the behaviour of the suspect was such that an arrest had to be made. 
I wonder why proposed new subsection (1)(b) has been included. Surely, if a person has been arrested and the officer believes that he may have swallowed a controlled drug, that should be sufficient to trigger the search by X-ray or scan, and it is not necessary to create a further hurdle—the requirement for the officer to believe that the person was in possession of the drug with appropriate criminal intent before arrest.

Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I might briefly add to my hon. Friend's argument the example of what might happen after the arrest of a group of people. If the drugs are passed from one person to another after arrest, either in the back of a police van or at whatever stage in the custody process, and the amendment is not made, those people will be given a defence.

Cheryl Gillan: That is very possible. The Minister should put that on her list of points to answer.
Amendment No. 39 is simple and will delete the words ''or both'' from line 29 in subsection (1) of new section 55A. We need to examine in what situations we might find that the inspector requires both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan. As I understand it, both X-rays and ultrasound scans would be able to detect drug packages in an individual suspected of swallowing drugs. X-rays are only able to detect objects that are opaque to light and all X-rays involve radiation, so they should not be performed without a clinical indication to limit exposure to the harmful effects of radiation. 
While we are considering what an X-ray actually does, we need to hear from the Minister what arrangements she will make, because I am informed that effects from X-rays are particularly damaging to a foetus and that they should not be done on a woman who believes that she may be pregnant, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. [Interruption.] Obviously, the Minister has thought about that; it hardly surprises me. However, I think that while we are discussing the clause, and as this is the largest group of amendments—I am sorry to be taking up so much time of the Committee, but these amendments contain the substance of the debate—I hope that she will let us know what arrangements have been made, particularly to deal with women.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Lady raises the question of the position of an arrestee who is pregnant. In retrospect, does she think that that is another good reason why authorisation should be given by an officer of the rank of inspector or above?

Cheryl Gillan: I have acceded to the fact that the authorisation should be given by someone of the rank of inspector, but the deduction would be made by a police officer of a lower rank because they are most likely to be the person present when the swallowing takes place. I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that one would have to be above the rank of inspector to detect that a woman may be expecting a baby. Of course, pregnancy could be a reason given by a female suspect for resisting having an X-ray or a scan.
Packages of drugs are opaque to light and I am informed that they should be easily detected on an abdominal X-ray. However, as the provision is drafted it says that both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan can be carried out on the same person. An ultrasound scan uses high-frequency sound waves to examine the structures of the body. Its advantage is that the patient is not exposed to the potentially harmful effects of radiation. However—this is the nub of the problem—an ultrasound scan and the procedure involved are much more time consuming than an X-ray. 
X-rays or ultrasound scans need to be performed by qualified health staff, who can be a radiographer, a radiologist or a doctor with specialised training in radiology, but both X-rays and ultrasound scans would need to be interpreted by an appropriately qualified doctor. I presume that that would be a radiologist. When does the Minister envisage that both an X-ray and an ultrasound scan would be required? For example, if a female suspect was informed that an X-ray or ultrasound scan was required, and she said ''But I am expecting a baby,'' I could envisage an ultrasound scan being used in that instance, but when would both be used? What will the cost of using both be?

Alistair Carmichael: I suggest that the answer lies within the hon. Lady's question. It might well be that authorisation is given for an X-ray, but if the inspector is then advised that the woman is pregnant, surely it should be open to him to authorise an ultrasound scan at that stage? The fact that both are authorised, does not necessarily mean that both have to be carried out.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that. Surely, however, the either/or decision could be taken at that stage? There are also cost implications. It would be interesting to know if the Minister has a default position on this. Will the guidance to police officers say that they must always go for an X-ray—which is the cheaper option, as I understand it—and use an ultrasound scan only in certain situations? Such a situation would become apparent to the inspector at the time, and they could therefore decide either/or. It would not be necessary to authorise both. It is a decision that will have to be made at the time of the authorisation, when they are considering the specific suspect who is to be subject to this.
My final point on this group of amendments concerns the costs. I appreciate that amendment No. 41 relates to potential costs, but I mention costs this stage because the authorisation to have the scan or X-ray at a hospital—or registered medical practitioner's  surgery, or some other place for medical purposes—will, of course, attract a charge, and we know that budgets are squeezed on all fronts. Can the Minister inform the Committee, therefore, what the cost difference is between X-rays and ultrasound scans, and whether there will be a cost-driven element in the guidance that is given to police? When and how will a policeman decide whether to use an X-ray or a scan? If, for example, the policeman telephones the hospital and finds that the X-ray machine is backed-up because there are a lot of patients using it, will the officer then go for an ultrasound scan? Does he have that capacity, or will he have to wait in line for his suspect to use the X-ray machine, as and when it is available? That brings me back to amendment No. 40.

Henry Bellingham: Will the officer accompany the suspect in the queue at the hospital? What practical arrangements does my hon. Friend envisage for that process?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend anticipates the debate that I hope to have on amendment No. 41. There are additional difficulties about the physical nature of how the investigation will take place.
I am conscious that I have spoken for a long time, and I am sorry to take up the Committee's time on this, but it is important. This is a good step forward. I would not want anybody to get the impression that I have anything but support for the principle, but we need the practical details to be set out for us clearly by the Minister, so that any issues or problems that may arise in future can be addressed.

Alistair Carmichael: This is an interesting if, as the hon. Lady says, mixed bag of amendments. However, it is not for mere mortals such as us to speculate on the selection of amendments—indeed, I would never dream of doing so.

Crispin Blunt: But?

Alistair Carmichael: There is no but—I accept your authority and that of your fellow Chairmen in such matters, Mr. Illsley. If dissent is to come from Conservatives, let them challenge the authority of the Chair.
I can see some merit in amendment No. 37. We are talking about the inspector having to cross an extra barrier to conduct the examination. Confusion about the circumstances in which people are often brought into detention in the first place might not make it clear to an arresting officer whether amphetamine or cocaine has been swallowed. Both are white powders and if the substance was wrapped up in cellophane, it would not be easy for the arresting officer to say. Therefore, although I understand the Government's motivation, the amendment has some merit. 
Likewise, I initially thought that the insertion of a three-hour time limit, as proposed by amendment No. 40, was sensible. However, the more I heard the hon.  Lady explain that amendment, the more I thought that she was wise to say that it was a probing amendment, which she would not press.

Cheryl Gillan: I was racking my brain as to how we could debate timing, so we could discover what was in the Minister's mind, so I chose an arbitrary period of three hours. I would not expect the Minister to accept amendment No. 40, I hasten to add, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is right.

Alistair Carmichael: The basis of my initial approval is that it is important sometimes to have time limits, as much for the person arrested as anyone else. The hon. Lady has been quite candid on whether three hours would be appropriate, although amendment No. 40 has another possible defect. Proposed new section 55A(9) of the 1984 Act says that courts
''may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper'' 
in considering various matters, including the determination of a case to answer or a conviction. That might affect someone whose X-ray fell outwith the proposed period. Amendment No. 40 would open up a further loophole, which would not be sensible, although the hon. Lady said that it was a probing amendment and we have had a useful discussion for all that.

Cheryl Gillan: It is not unreasonable to have guidelines on how long a police officer can reasonably leave a suspect before the X-ray or scan search is made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the guidance that we seek from the Minister is not only for our local constabularies, but to give the suspect some idea of the thinking that has gone into the period for which they can be held. We will discuss the extended detention provision later in the Bill, but there could be an extended detention situation if, for example, machinery was not available to conduct the test.

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, that is perfectly fair. Guidance is one thing; putting a time limit in the Bill is another. However, the hon. Lady has done the Committee a service in tabling the amendment, which has allowed us to receive an indication from the Minister of what guidance might be given to police officers.
Amendment No. 38 would omit subsection (1)(b) of new section 55A and the reference to possession with the ''appropriate'' criminal intent. I do not support it. Appropriate criminal intent—possession with intent to supply, under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—is quite proper; but to extend that provision, as the hon. Lady seeks to do, to cases of simple possession is neither necessary nor desirable. 
In addition, and from a practical point of view, the provision is partly for the protection of the arrested person—another reason why the amendment is unnecessary. Possession with intent to supply, or cases in which there is a suspicion of possession with intent to supply, will usually but not necessarily involve the possession of larger quantities of controlled drugs, which can often be more injurious to the arrested person should the packaging split within them. It is  right that we should deal with possession with intent to supply: the taking of X-rays or the carrying out of ultrasound examinations is a significant step, but it will not be routine, and it is appropriate in such circumstances. 
I did not pick up the entirety of the intervention of the hon. Member for Reigate, but he seemed to be speaking about drugs being passed from one person to another in the back of a police van, suggesting that one person would hold them and then give them back. Interestingly enough, such possession would show ''appropriate'' criminal intent because it would be possession with the intent to supply—the person holding the drugs would intend giving them back. As we all know, supply is not necessarily supply for a consideration.

Crispin Blunt: Subsection (1)(b) of proposed new section 55A deals with possession with the appropriate intent ''before his arrest''. If the person receives the drugs subsequent to his arrest, it would rule out the application of that provision.

Alistair Carmichael: That is an interesting point, although it is rather like the dancing angels on the head of a pin. If the person had been arrested on a simple possession charge or even on something completely unconnected, he would need to be rearrested on that other charge. Yes, that is a perfectly fair point.
On amendment No. 39, it is sensible that the X-ray and the ultrasound scan should both be available to the inspector. One can think of any number of reasons why, not least because it may not always be possible for the inspector to speak to the hospital—the radiographer, radiologist, consultant or whoever. Indeed, such a decision might best be made when one gets to the hospital. In addition, even though an X-ray has been authorised, it might subsequently be appropriate or even necessary to take an ultrasound scan. In the interests of flexibility that were exhorted earlier this morning, I would support the retention of the words ''or both''.

Henry Bellingham: I shall be brief, as I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. None the less, I would ask her to comment on a number of points.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, amendment No. 40, which suggests three hours, is a probing amendment. I think that the Minister will agree, however, that to leave it completely open would be asking for trouble. What discussions have taken place with the Department of Health about the sort of protocols that need to be put in place between trusts and police authorities—and not only with trusts, but with PCTs and those general practices that have X-ray machines and scanners? Serious problems could arise for consultants and hospital staff trying to deal effectively with their own waiting lists if they suddenly had to provide a scan or an X-ray for one, two, three, four or more suspects during a 24-hour period. There would be that tendency, unless we have some assurance from the Minister about there being a tight protocol in place between the health service and the police, so that action would be taken within a reasonable period of  time and on certain terms. Has the Minister considered the costs? Will the police authorities reimburse the trusts for the use of these machines? Have these particular matters been thought through in a sensible manner, and has there been proper consultation between the two Government Departments?

Caroline Flint: Amendment No. 37 looks beyond the class A drugs on which the clause concentrates. To give the Committee some background, the reason why the clause concentrates on class A drugs is that the police—who have brought forward many of these issues—are particularly worried about crack dealers, who often carry rocks of crack in their mouths and will swallow them upon arrest. The police often have such people under surveillance for drug dealing, which is the other issue here, so they do not just walk along the street and think, ''Right, we'll stop them.'' When a street dealer attempts to swallow a rock of crack, the police are often left with the difficult problem of whether to take action which may involve having to put hands on that person to prevent them from swallowing, which in public places—where much of the street dealing goes on—can result in misinterpretation by bystanders. That would put at risk bystanders who may think that a fight may be occurring and wonder what is going on, since we may be talking about plain-clothes police officers.
So there are a number of reasons why the police feel they want back-up to deal with that particular practice of people having an opportunity to evade justice. It was particularly raised in relation to class A drugs, especially crack. That same problem does not really happen in relation to cannabis dealers, the police have told us, as the drugs are not usually carried in a form which makes them susceptible to being swallowed. 
Amendment No. 37 would take us beyond the problem that the clause was designed to address. It would also put the clause out of kilter with other provisions of PACE, such as intimate drugs searches where the provisions are limited to class A drugs. However, I can see there may be some merit in exploring or, for that matter, anticipating the possibility that drugs other than class A drugs might in future pose similar problems. I am willing to take the issue away, reflect a little more on whether it is desirable to alter the reference to class A drugs by order, for example, should there be a need to do so in future, and to come back to the matter on Report. I have a relatively open mind on that particular issue, but it is also a matter of having clauses linked to a particular problem that has been brought forward for our attention, and to consider what is really practical with the sort of drugs most likely to be used in that regard.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate what the Minister is saying and would agree with her logic that the clause has arisen as a direct result of requests from the police. However, would it not be better to have it drafted more widely? Should the situation on the street change, it would seem to be a waste of time to return to legislation in order to widen the clause. The situation with regard to crack has changed dramatically within  a fairly short period of time and it is quite possible that it will change with regard to other substances. If the clause were to be drafted more widely, that legislation is there as a deterrent, as well as covering all eventualities.

Caroline Flint: The clauses in this part of the Bill are aimed at tackling those drugs most involved in criminal activity. Other parts of the Bill deal with the fact that it is overwhelmingly class A drug users who become addicted and involved in acquisitive crime. I have said that I am prepared to reflect on the issue further. I will reflect on the point about whether we should widen the catchment or seek to change by order. I have not made up my mind on the issue and I would like more time to take other soundings.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to require the authorisation for an ultrasound scan or X-ray to be given within three hours. We have had extensive debate on the issue. I take the point that it is a probing amendment, but there are many reasons why three hours would be an arbitrary cut-off point. There may be a need to obtain the services of a lawyer or an interpreter, which would create a time constraint. 
There are times when delays occur where arrests have been made at unsocial hours. That is partly an occupational hazard. No matter which Government are in, there will always be problems in trying to provide such a wraparound service. It is tempting to get into a broad discussion about NHS resources, but I shall not. In my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends, as well as throughout the country, we have seen huge investment in the health service, not only in terms of people—the rising numbers of doctors, consultants, nurses and others—but in buildings. 
Record resources are going into policing: in real terms there has been a 21 per cent. increase since 1997; and there are real-terms increases in our health service as well, which we will continue to support. The hon. Lady has made many points about money and spending. We know that the Opposition want to cut spending in public services should they ever have the chance to come into government.

Cheryl Gillan: I can assure the Minister that we shall not be cutting public spending when we are recruiting 40,000 extra police, which will no doubt help tremendously.
However, there is a national shortage of radiographers, which is one of the most difficult issues to resolve. This is not a frivolous or point-scoring exercise, but a serious request for the Minister to tell us what she intends to do about the shortage of radiographers and people to operate and interpret X-rays and ultrasound scans. I know many people who have had to wait for some weeks to be slotted in for their X-rays, but she is expecting an accident and emergency department to see people at the drop of a hat.

Caroline Flint: I certainly have not said that they will be seen at the drop of a hat, which is why I am not accepting an amendment that says that it should be within three hours. A number of different issues apply. The Bill has gone through the usual channels around Departments and has received policy clearance from different Departments. We should be realistic about the extent to which the provision will be used. It will not necessarily be used every day or for the huge numbers that the hon. Lady suggests. It is linked to certain offences and there are certain safeguards in its application. The confinement to three hours is not suitable.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister rightly said that the provision has been round all Departments for policy clearance. It would greatly aid our deliberations if she would make the response from the Department of Health available to the Committee, so that we know how it responded to the extra demand on its resources.

Caroline Flint: I am not going down that road. This is a Government Bill. I take the point that hon. Members are asking probing questions, but the arguments advanced are rather daft. There are several things that have to be taken into account at any one time in managing a situation and police officers, forensic medical examiners and others will work to ensure that what is proposed is done appropriately. In that respect, guidance will be given to the police by revising the PACE codes when the provision comes into force, and we will ensure that it is understood.
As drafted, the clause simply requires X-rays and ultrasound scans to be undertaken while the person is in police detention between arrest and charge. Normally, that is limited by PACE to 24 hours, but it can be extended depending on the circumstances of the case. The period should allow the X-ray or the scan, or both, to be undertaken while taking into account the busy health professionals serving our communities in hospitals throughout the country. 
My response to amendment No. 38 is that before an X-ray or ultrasound scan is authorised, the clause requires the authorising officer to have reasonable grounds for believing that a person may have swallowed a class A drug, and 
 ''(b) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest'', 
that is, that they intend to deal in the drug. The amendment would remove the requirement that a person in possession of a class A drug had the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest. That will catch not only dealers but those who have the drug in their possession for personal use. The intention of the clause is to target dealers, not users. In the case of users, testing is a route to treatment, which is more appropriate; that is why those who are arrested for acquisitive offences are tested, because, sadly, they are often drug addicts. To use the provisions of the clause against users would be unnecessary, unhelpful and disproportionate; I therefore cannot accept the amendment. 
It is right that the clause should stay as drafted. People can always come up with a scenario that has not been thought of, but in most circumstances raised by the hon. Gentleman there are sufficient safeguards, or opportunities for the police to deal with the situations. 
On the authorising of an ultrasound scan or an X-ray, or both, I want to make it clear that there may be situations in which an individual may, for proper reasons, refuse to have one of those procedures. The example of a pregnant woman was raised and there may be religious or cultural issues in some circumstances. That is why, although we say that the refusal to undertake an X-ray or an ultrasound scan would be made available for the courts to take inferences from, if someone had a reasonable excuse they could make that clear to the court, which could take it into account. That is a proper safeguard. 
It is important that, with proper authorisation, both procedures should be allowed. The situation described by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland might arise. If an X-ray is authorised and it turns out to be inappropriate and a scan is needed—or vice versa—it would avoid the need to get another authorisation. That needs to be understood. It might be that an X-ray was not definitive, depending on the size of the package swallowed. An ultrasound scan to follow up an indication provided by an X-ray might provide a more definitive result. This is an attempt to build the evidence about the person and the offence for which they are being charged.

Cheryl Gillan: I am following the Minister's explanation carefully. I do not disagree with it. Where does the evidence come from? Is it from Customs and Excise or has there been a pilot?

Caroline Flint: There has not been a pilot. We have asked the police about this. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady. We have ongoing discussions in the Home Office with the police and others about the supply of drugs and enforcement. The ACPO committee has seen the clauses and is happy with them. I have asked the questions and the officials have advised me. I would hope that in most circumstances one intervention might be enough. Obviously the guidance needs to be clear.
In an example of joined-up government, the Department of Health experience confirms our findings. There are situations that have nothing to do with criminal activity but involve identifying a medical problem. We may all have been in a situation where we have had an X-ray and then been told by doctors that they are not happy with it and that a scan is needed  too. Suffice it to say, those who are trying to define a medical problem or to identify drugs that someone has swallowed confirm that there can be occasions where it is not clear from one procedure and the other is needed as a follow-up. 
People must understand that team work is involved in the process. Police officers do not have the medical ability to take some of these decisions. Once an inspector is authorised to carry out a scan, an X-ray or both, the normal route would be for a forensic medical examiner, formerly called a police surgeon, to refer the arrestee to hospital. The forensic medical officer would have to be satisfied that the procedure was safe before referral. Presumably they would speak to the person about any issues and any outstanding medical conditions including pregnancy. They may also refer the arrestee to hospital for attention if they consider their health is at risk because a package of drugs may be leaking. We need safeguards in the system, both to protect the health of the arrestee and to ensure that if the case comes to court the defence could not argue that procedures were not followed properly. Given what I said earlier about amendment No. 37, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the other amendments in the group.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Minister. I am pleased that she has thought again about amendment No. 37. I know that she excelled herself last week by accepting three of our amendments. I hope that she will reflect favourably on the issue that we have raised and widen the catchment on Report. That will strengthen the provisions in this area, and that is what we all want. The hon. Lady is right about amendment No. 40. The time may have to be extended while a lawyer, legal representative or interpreter arrives, and the hours may be antisocial. I am disappointed, however, because she has still not given any real indication of what she expects to be a reasonable amount of time to elapse between the decision being taken that a scan or X-ray is necessary and it being done. The matter is obviously open-ended, but some studies and information must be available.
The Minister said that guidance will be given to the police. I am interested to know when it will be given. I appreciate that that will be after the provision comes into force. Will she remind me when the provision comes into force? Perhaps she can take advice and intervene in a minute. Or will it be a matter for consultation of some sort, for the simple reason that we will have to consider the surrounding circumstances?

Caroline Flint: The provision will come into force by order, and obviously we want to ensure that we can enforce it as soon as is appropriate once guidance and other matters are more clearly defined and discussed with the appropriate police and others who will have a part in it.

Cheryl Gillan: Once again, the provision is being pushed right out into the long grass, so we cannot expect it to be brought into force later this year. It will  be enforced at some time in the future, which is slightly depressing, because it could be available to the police almost immediately as a tool. That is a great shame.
On amendment No. 39, the Minister has acknowledged the cultural problems of taking scans and X-rays, but she did not respond on the difference in cost between an ultrasound scan and an X-ray. Perhaps we can return to that when we discuss amendment No. 41. I am not going to die in a ditch about it, so I shall not press amendments Nos. 37, 40 and 39 to a vote. I do, however, stand by amendment No. 38, however imperfectly it is drafted, because the Minister struck at my heart when she said that the Government were trying to get at the dealers, not the users. That revealed the intention not to send the strong message that I expect from the provision. A very strong message should be sent from this new innovation that such behaviour will not be tolerated in our society. The message needs to be strengthened.

Caroline Flint: Some dealers are obviously also users, so they do not always fall nicely and neatly into compartments. We are, however, considering ways of organising police time and priorities, and we are focusing on those who engage in dealing and other criminal activity that harms other people. There has been much discussion this morning about resources and priorities. As we will discuss when we come to other parts of the Bill, we are considering ways of identifying people with an addiction problem who are committing offences that may not be supply offences, of stopping that criminal activity and of engaging with the problem of their addiction to drugs, which is fuelling the activity.
This part of the Bill relates to supply offences and dealing offences. We are conscious of the fact that people evade the charge of supplying drugs by using all these ruses to get around it, which is why we have confined ourselves to directing police time to dealing with some of these difficult issues and the drug crimes that cause the most problems. That must be the offence of dealing, particularly in class A drugs.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate where the Minister is coming from, but I must diverge slightly from her view because the clause is about the people who have swallowed the drugs. Now the Minister is saying that the clause is designed to catch not the user, but only the dealer.
Despite what the Minister has said, although I am prepared to withdraw amendments—

Caroline Flint: So that the question does not hang over us until Report, I inform the Committee that the PACE codes that would need to be revised in order for the measures to be enforced are revised annually on 1 August. Our aim is to bring this provision into force by August 2005—that is the deadline to which we are working.

Cheryl Gillan: I am more than excited by that prospect, but I hope that I, rather than the current Minister, will be the Minister who implements the provision. We will do our best to ensure that it is an excellent tool to give to our admirable police forces. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Amendment proposed: No. 38, in clause 5, page 5, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mrs. Gillan.] 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 5, page 5, line 42, at end insert
''(d) a purpose built facility for carrying out searches authorised under this legislation''. 
The purpose behind the amendment is to continue the debate that we have had on earlier amendments, because I had expected there to be some separation. I therefore hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I repeat myself to some extent. I originally tabled the amendment because I wanted to use it as a device to examine the costs to the Home Office. 
Having read the regulatory impact assessment, I was not sure that the costs had been featured. I have the RIA with me, and I hope that the Minister may be able to point me in the right direction. I could not find anything that helped me to establish the cost of an X-ray or an ultrasound scan, or to quantify the numbers that were expected or the appropriate staffing levels. Indeed, I made a note about interpreters and antisocial hours, because those factors would add to the costs of the entire exercise. 
Subsection (4) refers to: 
 ''(a) a hospital, 
 (b) a registered medical practitioner's surgery, or 
 (c) some other place used for medical purposes.'' 
I presume that that paragraph (b) refers to a GP's surgery and that ''some other place'' would include private facilities. I therefore ask the Minister what the difference in costs is between having an X-ray or an ultrasound scan in a hospital, at a GP's surgery or at 
''some other place used for medical purposes.'' 
Obviously, this tool will be of use; it has been requested by police forces throughout the country. I presume that there will, at some stage, be an  assessment of how often it might be used. Has the Minister considered the cost of having purpose-built suites, or mobile scanners, for police use, as a dedicated resource? What sort of technology does she envisage being used? What discussions has she had with the health service? The Minister ducked that question earlier, but she cannot brush this important issue under the carpet; there are implications for the resources of the Department of Health and for the public purse and the public budget. As far as I am aware, it is not covered in the RIA, although the Minister may tell me that I am wrong about that. I am willing to accept such a correction. 
I want to compare what would happen if there were facilities available at certain police stations in a police area, with what would be involved in getting to a hospital, GP's surgery or some other place used for medical purposes. What arrangements will there be to transport the suspect? How many people will be expected to accompany them? What arrangements will there be for waiting? Will the suspect wait in an accident and emergency department in full sight of people who are waiting for treatment, or will he or she be treated in the same way as a prisoner who is taken out of prison to receive hospital treatment? What will be the practical arrangements at GPs' surgeries, private hospitals—if such facilities are to be used—and A and E departments? 
What sort of transport and escort resources will be eaten up by the measure? Obviously, if there is no purpose-built facility at a police station, and travel is required, there will have to be arrangements to take the suspect to the X-ray or scanning facility with however many police officers are considered necessary. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us. I see that she is hurriedly looking through the RIA, but cannot find the answer; perhaps we can join forces and request better and further information, because there is a glaring hole in the RIA on this issue. I hope that I will have her support in getting the answers to my questions, which will be of great help to the Committee, and will enable us to examine this provision in the detail in which it deserves.

Caroline Flint: The clause requires that an X-ray or ultrasound scan be carried out only at a hospital, registered medical practitioner's surgery or some other place used for medical purposes, which could, I suppose, be a private hospital. I will seek further guidance, but that would be my interpretation. Obviously, it would have to be an environment with the appropriate equipment and staff to carry out an X-ray or ultrasound scan.
In line with what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, we do not want to confine ourselves to using the local hospital if there are other suitable premises. That approach offers flexibility in carrying out the procedure, and recognises that the development and modernisation of our health service means that, in future, there might be walk-in centres or other facilities in which those procedures can be carried out. Currently, some pregnant women can have ultrasound scans at their local GP's surgery. We  have to be open to change, because it can sometimes be right and appropriate to provide these procedures in settings other than a hospital. 
Although this is a probing amendment, I want to address its substance. If it were included in the Bill, it would make provision for 
''a purpose built facility for carrying out searches authorised under this legislation''. 
That would not be proportionate in cost, and I know—at least, I hope—that that is not the hon. Lady's intention; it would be rather overstepping the mark.

Cheryl Gillan: I can assure the Minister that that is not my intention. I am not seeking a vote on the amendment; it is purely a probing amendment. I want to see whether consideration had been given to portable machines and the new technology that enables them to be carried around. I also want to find out more about the work that the Department should have done on this issue. This is not a dyed-in-the-wool, ''I'd like you to change the Bill'' amendment.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. There are pros and cons to the argument, but regardless of the hon. Lady's point about us putting pressure on our hospitals by using them for the purposes set out in the clause, the provision would not be used willy-nilly every day, and we are talking about small numbers of people. I would prefer resources to go into our hospitals so that they can continue improving their facilities and equipment, with the police having the option, on occasion, to access those facilities. That would be the right way to use those resources, and I am sure that the public would agree.
 Obviously, it is difficult to know what variation in costs there is between locations or, for that matter, how an individual hospital or trust costs an X-ray as opposed to an ultrasound scan. However, the cost will be marginal, because we are not talking about a huge number of people. Let us not forget also that, every day, the police may have reason to take someone who is in detention to hospital for a procedure or because of other matters connected with that individual's health. I might be wrong, but I cannot recall anyone suggesting that there is a huge problem with the police impinging and placing burdens on the health service.

Cheryl Gillan: Is the Minister right that the cost will be negligible? The procedure will require a highly trained health professional to be present to carry out the X-ray or the ultrasound scan. Indeed, ultrasound scans take longer and are more complex procedures, as I am sure the Minister knows. Thereafter, there is the added cost of having a much more highly qualified person interpret the results, which cannot simply be looked at by a police officer. The financial and time costs to the NHS of each scan or X-ray will therefore be reasonably significant. Will it get the money back from the Home Office? What is the financial arrangement between the Home Office and the Department of Health? They have obviously agreed the policy, but surely not without allocating the cost.

Caroline Flint: Of course, a police officer will not carry out the X-ray or the ultrasound scan; people in the hospital will do that. As in other situations, arrangements exist in practice to deal with a prisoner or someone who has been arrested should they need attention in hospital. I return to the point that the hon. Lady raised in an earlier discussion. One reason for not including a time limit is that we must recognise that other people use these facilities. It is not necessarily a question of leapfrogging over others who are waiting for an X-ray.
I shall make another point about why we have endeavoured to tackle the issue in these clauses. One problem at the moment is that some people refuse to have an ultrasound scan or X-ray, thinking that it will help their case or weaken the police case in court. When we discussed the effects of the clause we considered whether it would affect someone who, having been arrested, and faced with the prospect of being charged with supply offences, realised that past loopholes no longer existed. 
There is another side to the argument—an opportunity to avoid some of the time-wasting of the past and to provide a deterrent. However, because of other evidence that the police will have, from surveillance and other sources, the person will also be able to reason that if they refuse the ultrasound or X-ray without proper reason—such as pregnancy—the court will be able to draw inferences. Thus in many cases it might not be necessary to use the X-ray or ultrasound route, because the person will realise that the game is up and that in the light of the other evidence they might as well plead guilty. 
We all, I hope, would prefer a state of affairs in which—provided that everything was done properly—the police evidence would, more often than happens now, persuade the arrested person that they would be better off pleading guilty to a supply charge rather than pleading not guilty or trying for a possession charge.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not disagree with what the Minister says, and if her wishes and aspirations come to fruition the Home Office and police services will obviously benefit. However, the provision seems to create a net drain on other resources that come within another Department's responsibility. I am not sure that primary care trusts and GP surgeries in my constituency will take kindly to another burden being placed on them with no financial recompense.
Mr. Carmichael rose—

Cheryl Gillan: I am intervening on the Minister, actually, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. She is telling me that no financial assessment has been made of the costs of the X-rays and ultrasounds, and that no arrangements have been made with the Department of Health other than at policy clearance level to consider what resources will be needed. She now tells hard-pressed, overburdened GPs that they are expected to take on another burden and accident  and emergency departments that they are expected to cater for non-accident and emergency work, with no financial recompense.

Caroline Flint: It is an interesting discussion, given the huge resources that have gone into the health service to build up many hospital departments and primary care in the community.

Alistair Carmichael: It may assist the Minister if I tell her that I took the opportunity to phone my wife's surgery; I was advised that it expects an ultrasound scan to start at £29 and an X-ray to start at £36. The Minister, however, will bear in mind that my wife is in practice as a veterinary surgeon.

Caroline Flint: Perhaps we should add those to the list.
I know what great interest the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham takes in animal welfare, as a devoted dog owner. I do not know whether she still keeps her dog in her office—or perhaps I should not have said that. 
What we are considering would take up a tiny proportion of the time that local health service hospitals spend on different activities and, in particular, X-rays and ultrasound Scans. I do not say that it would not take up some of their time; of course it would. My understanding is that the health service is quite able to absorb those costs within the huge resources that have been provided for it under this Government. We are discussing one of many instances in which the police may need to refer suspects to the health service for medical intervention. Neither we nor the Department of Health think that it will be a problem, but, as with any piece of legislation, it will be kept under review. 
Part of our ambition is to stop people using loopholes that have been available in the past and that have extended the system. Health costs, court costs and police time are all involved. Sometimes it is hard to quantify exactly how much will be saved from one budget or another, but our overall intention is to reduce costs in the criminal justice system by ensuring that people are brought to trial as speedily as possible. The purpose of the clause is to deal with clear attempts by suspects to frustrate police officers and the fact that courts are unable to know that people have refused X-rays and ultrasound scans. The medium to long-term cost benefits of the provisions are greater than some of the costs that the hon. Lady has put forward.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is in some difficulty because there is no reference to what we are discussing in the RIA. She is obviously taking advice during the course of the debate, but there are still problems surrounding this issue. For example, what if a GP's surgery refuses to take an X-ray or ultrasound scan if it is requested to do so? What burdens will be placed on the Department of Health? If the hon. Lady can assure me that the Department has accepted these costs as extra burdens on hospital, hospital trust and primary care trust budgets, I will be satisfied, but I do not think that that is the case. 
If we are going to have 
''some other place used for medical purposes'' 
as set out in paragraph (c), there must be an agreement with the private sector, or with other facilities that provide X-rays or ultrasound scans. I hope that the Minister will provide more detail at a later stage, perhaps by writing to members of the Committee.

Caroline Flint: I do not accept the premise of the problem that the hon. Lady is putting forward, but I will examine the police's current use of the NHS and share my findings with the Committee. As she must be aware, the police have to call on the services of other agencies, including the NHS, every day to carry out their job. The clause does not add any undue burdens that would create a huge problem. On the basis of what I have said, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I will withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I will withdraw it for the simple reason that I drafted it as a probing amendment, and I was up front about that. I am being urged by my hon. Friends not to withdraw it, but I will. The Minister is moving in the direction in which I wish her to of providing us with more detail.
Let me make it clear that I am not against the provisions; I am trying to strengthen them and to iron out difficulties that I foresee. The haste with which the Bill has been brought before us has resulted in some of the i's not being dotted and the t's not being crossed. The absence from the RIA of an estimate of the cost to the health service is indicative of that haste. 
GPs' surgeries will not be happy that a policeman can telephone from a local constabulary requesting use of their facilities for which they will not be reimbursed. 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.